Steem, Curation, and lap-dances at Steemfest 3
As a content creator, my first thoughts towards 50% content / 50% curation rewards were something like 'oh ffs sake'.
If you've missed @kevinwong's recent work on this topic, the latest is here and I think well worth a read:
@trafalgar, has recently resurfaced from mass post production under @traf to stress the same points here: https://steemit.com/steem/@trafalgar/help-fix-steem-s-economy (lap-dance reference)
There are numerous other proposed changes including a separate down-vote pool and a change to the linear rewards curve, and whilst I think that more than one change could be required for eternal happiness, my brain cannot tackle all three at once and so I'd like to just talk about the percentage split between content creators and curators.
This is not a real park, there is no dog-shit in sight source
Producing one piece of content a day can sometimes take up the whole day. I generally work hard on the post (this post is not a prime example) or spend time in the comments providing the data/pie chart etc that I've promised to gift in the main text.
Hearing about a 33.3% cut in the rewards paid out for authorship of a post sounded worrying, even though it would double up the curation rewards I received.
A quick look at steemworld.org showed the rewards over the past 7 days to be:
Curation SP: 54.16
Author SP: 70.24
SBD: 56.89
Factor in the 50/50 model for the past 7 days and these numbers would be:
Curation SP: 108.32
Author SP: 46.82
SBD: 37.92
And the totals in $, if 1 SBD is $1 and 1 STEEM is $.80:
75/25: $156.41
50/50: $162.03
Well that doesn't look so bad does it?
Yes, I could have posted more than 3 times in the past week, and if I did the same calculations in a weeks time (after 7 posts in 7 days), 75/50 would likely be on top by much more. I also have around 21000 active Steem Power (thanks to kind delegates), which is more than 99% of the all Steem accounts - 99% accounts taking the hit on the face of it, unless....
We need more curators. Have you heard that one before? I have, and I think we have a lot of potential curators, they just need to be lured out to play a bit more. And if that happens, the above numbers could swing back towards 50/50.
How?
I can see, under a 50/50 model, a reduction in bid-bot delegations, so much so, that it could leave only a few of them left. Many of small delegates could come back to curation with own stake, even if it's just in the main for a selection of friends. However, these friends also have other friends that will be seeking curation rewards, and so the net may need to be cast wider - find some new friends quality under-valued content perhaps.
The best curation strategy at present is to front run the 3/4 biggest bid-bots. I watch 15 SP accounts do it, and I also watch @aicurator do it. 44000 SP in the tank (right now, was 60k last week) , and 264 SP earned via curation over the past 7 days is pretty impressive. 50/50 here would look very nice, and so there needs to be more random to the voting and less script checking wallet sends.
So would 50/50 bring out more curators to hunt for undervalued content? Even if the main reason was that they didn't need to produce 7/8/9 posts a day in order to prove their stake against?
It could happen. One account told me it would be a 'relief' not to be posting so much. I'm pretty sure it's not an enjoyable task, banging out 'sub-par' work, but it's the shortest path to stake maximization. I think we need to add a few curves in the path.
Curation guilds could benefit from this proposed change. Would stake come from the bots and be trusted with a guild like @curie, or @ocd, or @c-squared? I'd like to think so.
And what about the comments in posts? Up to 50% of the reward going back to the author of the post who likes the comments they see? That sounds good for engagement.
I'm pretty sure larger accounts would be in majority favor of 50/50. Small accounts earning 10 cents a week curation, with that moving to 20 cents on 50/50 are more likely to focus on the 'potential' loss in author income. It is only potential though, one decent vote could sort that out.
I think we need less (completely shit) content, and more curators. The most obvious way to attract more curators? Pay them more.
When?
Not sure here. Wait for an SMT, or just go for it 'here'? You could argue less risk waiting for an SMT, but as others have argued with me today, can we afford to wait 6/7/'soon' months?
Steem will be here either way IMO. The streets and offices could really reek by then tough.
I'd like to end with a quote from a witness who's been around the block a few times. I admit, I missed this point - Thanks for detailing it @ats-david
It’s the rationale for 50/50 that most people miss or won’t acknowledge - that non-bloggers are the demographic that we ought to cater to when it comes to incentives. It’s a much larger demographic and the more promising chance of “mass adoption” and consequent (potential) capital appreciation. source
non-bloggers = curators = investors?
Cheers
Asher
My biggest concern here is decreasing the total pool content creators are earning as a whole. If Steem price skyrockets because more people are buying into profit from the 50% slice of the pie then from a psychological standpoint as long as people see their earnings increase in value even if the amount of Steem they are earning is less most would be ok with that.
Right now there is a massive shortage of people entering contests, and people producing content that others would deem “upvoting.” This is more to do with how much of pain in the butt it is for the average users to find what they really want. Which leaves many contests with low or no participation (can you believe I win contest sometimes by default? Kind of sad). Many amazing things only being found by communities they have been posted in (by the very few who go through those feeds), and people such as those who are involved in curation guilds using quite a few different method in discovering content (external tools, brute force, discord diving ext…)
Curating for a guild
As a curator on a few different levels excluding my actual curation rewards from the reward pool I was paid directly just over 3 Steem for a weeks’ time (it was not a great week I’ll admit).Now I could have earned a lot more than that but it gets completed and time-consuming as well.
Certain curation opportunities have very high standards and when those are not meet you are out. That is just how it is. So while I would have liked to do more I have to think about the long-term of still being able to do “something.” Which means sitting on the sidelines waiting for next month with certain things and picking up the slack elsewhere. With plagiarism checking, looking for a possible sign of a sock puppet/alt, reposting, and ensuring the content is what the curation guild is even interested in rewarding among other things it becomes time-consuming.
For me personally even doubling the curation rewards is sadly not going do much. Even if say I had a better week and I made 30+ Steem at it (which is more than possible once I get into a groove.) I do it to mostly help the amazing posts out there get more than the pocket lint they are left with. It’s not possible to earn the amount of actual Steem I need. I need the price to skyrocket in the next few years and I need to hold most of it. Which is what a large amount of people on this platform needs regardless if you are a content creator, curator, investor. Granted I’m just a small-time nothing who is using other peoples SP. While I have help undervalued authors connect with 1000’s in rewards by creating an opportunity or being more hands on. I’m not an investor so I just do it for fun and maybe one day it will cover my electrical bills for the time spent doing so.
What we really need
Now for those in more cost effect country, this could be quite an opportunity for them to take up being in a curating guild that covers their cost of living. The issue is it already quite completive to find the “breadcrumbs,” and get into curation guilds unless more middle-income class communities, dapps, and curation guilds start popping up that encourage people to post the kind of content they are looking to reward and those places need help spreading their stake in the reward pool.
Very successful people in life tend not to have time to micromanage there SP to try and max their curation rewards. They are more than likely already earning better outside of Steemit then on. This is simply a long-term investment. Unless they are heavily invested in Steemit and this is their major source of income. So, whoever pays them the highest tends to get their SP regardless (yes, there will always be expectations). They could right now be making dapps and communities that have a benefactor cut like some do out there. Yet, more are not taking advantage of this including myself.
We need more people innovating
Debating over who should get a bigger cut of the pie is not increasing the pie. They can already use benefactor cuts to increase how much they get of said pie if they created something people wanted to use and had the SP behind backing it.
Sadly I’m just not that guy to get it done. I’m not a programmer or someone who has the financial means to be a backer and I’m even very short already on time these days. I’m just a min. wage worker when times are good. I am already exceeding putting in a full jobs times worth into Steemit every week creating what I consider “quality” content, co-running a community focused on curating/ “quality content,” being involved in other communities to further curation efforts, and other stuff. When these things become not worth waking up anymore and dealing with I’m going be moving on. I don’t create enough “value” to make it financially worth my time and that is solely on myself. Not the % of curation rewards.
Okay 50/50 reward split, now lets look at it seriously. 40/50/10 author/curator/dtube. 25/50/25 author/curator/steemspeak (I think they are a 25% beneficiary). Dapp's one of the selling points is rewards from users, those that use their product to create content. Right now busy and a few others Beneficiaries do not charge, yet they can start at anytime. So the only place a 50/50 split Author/curator is going to work is on steemit. They need to rethink this issue. Beneficiaries can charge upto 30% of the rewards for using their tool. You are not going to have many people creating content for 20 cents on a dollar. Curators are not charged for voting. I am pretty sure the number of Post will take a severe down turn at a 50/50 split especially when they see how much they really get after using something other than steemit to make their post.
It's a point worth high-lighting for sure, but I can see a lot of sense in @nonameslefttouse's comment above.
The apps could cut down their beneficiary due to the fact there vote size will pick up a good share of the curation. So maybe 45/40% for the author, plus their curation if they choose to vote themselves. I will likely return to some self-voting, we'll see.
A lot of new thoughts, yes dapps can change their charge rate, dtube did. went from 25% and supporting their users with vote backs, to 10% and cutting back on the vote backs, at least that is what I was told, I do not know how they vote back, but there have been a few complaints about the lack of votes from them. Would others follow the same track? Dapps get paid whether they vote back or not, yes competition will help.
Steemit is still feeling it's way around this new concept. Things will be tried, and some things will be costly. I just hope the cost is not going to be a loss of content whether shit or quality. People will continue here or on another blockchain for the freedom of posting, away from the controls of government and big media.
Lap-dance? We need @kevinwong in our bowling team!!! That'd be fun :-D
Jokes aside, I am not sure about the 50/50 changes since I feel that the core problem we have is a different one. We're not able to keep the users that join us, and I don't think they'd stay if they earned a couple of cents more for curation. I think what makes people stay is the sense of belonging - like in any other communtiy (on- or offline) in the world.
People need to find their tribe, their base, a niche where they feel comfortable and cozy. The rewards are just the cream topping.
I feel that we need a bigger focus on communities and help them to onboard more users into their already existing network.
I think we have a lot of communities, and those that haven't found one in 6 months are seemingly not interested.
It's not so much about the additional 2 cents for the newcomers, it's the extra % a large account can gain curating that small account.
If your posts are averaging $1 now, they would in theory be worth .66 with 50/50, but with so many more eyes looking, there's got to be a good chance someone will find it, and maybe the snowball will start to roll down the hill (Minnow votes are at the top :D )
Do they even stay 6 months? :-)
Interesting take... I hope these topics will be part of discussions at Steemfest.
Yes, you can talk to Kevin about it when you get your lap-dance :D
You'll see a chart showing some numbers behind this at Steemfest :)
Hahaha, do people talk about crypto while lap-dancing nowadays...? :-D Crazy!
I guess we gonna see a lot of charts there, hehe
Mostly there are more leaving then joining, that's why I want to talk about retention:
Source: paulag
Looks very price orientated to me. Not relating to communities coming and going.
In JAN, moon time, then a slump, a revival in March, and a fairly steady decline since - that's the price, and the chart above.
Looks like more new users in Sept than Aug, and as the price holds around here, I expect that to also.
We shall see, things are never as bad as the look, he says!
That's true it doesn't look too bad at all, especially because the churn rate considerably dropped.
I think the correlation with the price is exactly the core problem. It's as if we speculated on retention.
You and I we also don't leave just because we'd get less dollars for the tokens we currently hold :-)
Yes, that's cause we believe that at some point, they will be worth much more than now :)
I think it is worth a try... I enjoy curating although doing it manually means I sometimes miss out on better rewards due to the trails but I think it is worth it as reading through comments gives great perspectives! I have been finding myself distributing many more votes for curation and I think that is good for everyone so giving it a try will not be the end of the world. I think it is a circle so it will make creators engage more which provides great conversations and thoughts which will come back to them in curation anyway.
If it pulls the Orcas and Whales out to curate a little, then that would change a lot here with regards to sentiment, and hopefully some nice votes on decent posts.
What makes people so sure that increasing curation rewards will mean a decrease of delegations for bid bots? Some if not most of the bots pay delegators a portion of the curation rewards they get. Although the reward of self may not be as high, people still have means to maximise their rewards.
Really? Today I saw a post from a person, who runs a vote-selling service, claiming that vote selling is a problem.
You also mention frontrunning big accounts (bid bots). So the curation guilds will become the new bid bots. They could easily be paid services to favour one account over another. All these changes look like gaming the system.
I don't know what makes people so sure, I've just read a couple of times today that this would 'kill bots'. I think some could still run, but the market would get even fiercer.
The person selling votes has a vote selling problem? :D
50/50 would negate the need for some accounts like traf, to produce 'as much' content for his stake to go on each day.
Guessing what would get a @curie 18 months ago was the best game to play.
Guilds would be trailing curie, which many Dolphin/Orca/Whale accounts are larger than these days. At 50/50, they would get a nice slice and be supporting content that most people would respect.
It is likely happening now.
This is certainly happening right now!
Agreed, many bid-bots already adjusted their voting time to 15th min. They'll get a bigger portion in the end. I don't see how it should be helpful to anyone.
Some whales manages 10 accounts and upvote each other on right time. I believe it's not something to be solved with code.
As they should, whilst they still want income. There are accounts with stake who would share some if there was more in it for them. Some are delegated to bots (lazy 2nd best earner) 'excessively', some voting themselves 'excessively', (a bit more work 1st best earner). A change to encourage these accounts to join in sounds positive to me.
As I said on another post on this, no way am I going to continue putting in 10 hours or more researching a post so those reading it get the same percentage I get. And the majority of curators give dust votes. And even on the posts that they get a payout, it is minimal. My first few months here my curation rewards were almost nothing. This feels like a shift to give large stakeholders more of the pool to compensate for the downturn in the bidbot delegation returns.
I also know that I have given around 20% of my earnings to charities I believe deserve it. The 33% proposed loss would stop that dead. I will lose more from an average post that the increase in curation rewards.
Seems to encourage shit posting from my perspective. No way those who benefit from the effort of a quality post are deserving of the same reward.
Fair enough. I must admit, I'll probably curate my own posts again after a good break from self-voting.
It feels like that, but the reward (besides your own vote) is nothing unless people arrive. 75% or 50% of nothing is the same.
To be fair, 50/50 was on the table at the start, a year before the SP delegation fork.
umm, yeah, but it could also cut back on the rent seeking type of posting that the very likeable trafalgar has been doing under traf.
He has 780,000 SP. How many of your account is that? And would starting to shit post when curation was rewarded more make sense? Not sure.
50/50 reward split might decrease delegation to bid bots. At 75/25 split, curation bots like @nfc can return 20% ROI (more than 70% of bid-bots I suppose), imagine what would be the return at 50/50.
I don't think most of the users would like to read and vote contents while they can earn passive income delegating to a curation bot like what we have now with bid bots.
Right now for me, I can take several weeks to think, learn, and develop a tool, then make a post at utopian-io and get rewarded for it. For 100 STU I can take 75 worth of STEEM and SBD, will it get 150 STU under 50/50 consistently? I doubt that.
Producing good content is expensive, so there will be less to vote on. But what would you do while your VM is at 100%? I guess vote on mediocre content because with one click 50% is mine.
If anyone delegate me 50K SP for a reasonable fee under 50/50 reward split, I'd support this. ;)
Passive income to a curation bot sounds ok to me?
I was thinking about how 50/50 might work for Utopian. Right now, it's a great curation for $ place due to people knowing good contributions can receive a 50-75% vote, and this vote might be 1/2/3/6 days after the post is created. Even 12 hours before the vote leaves anyone the chance to get involved in the post.
50k could get you around 250-300 SP a week at 50/50 :O
Frankly all I see with this 50/50 curation reward is the guys whose votes are worth more just getting more for their auto votes which by the way are mostly made to their own group of people, so this again would just make the rich richer and the others, as always, getting less and less, because there is no way the bigger guys are going to change their voting to help out small members.
I believe the reason for the multiple posts on the subject from the guys I've linked above, at least these two would look to curate/delegate to a guild to curate more.